New development might come to Rush City

The City Council of Rush City received a plan for a new development as part of its meeting held Monday, April 8.

Builder Nic Malchow turned in a concept plan to the city’s Planning Commission to get feedback on a large parcel located on the north side of West Second Street between 935 and 875.

The parcel has a 30-foot easement up to the high school, and the developer would like to put five homes on it and plat it. There would need to be a private roadway to access all five of those homes.

According to City Administrator Amy Mell, “This is just a concept plan.” The developer is looking for input from the Planning Commission and council before purchasing the parcel.

Mell added that there would have to be a homeowners association.

Council member Michael Louzek asked if, 30 years from now, there is a problem with the water main, who would replace the driveway. Mell said that the developer or homeowners association would have to file paperwork with the county that made it clear that it was a private driveway, not a city road.

Council member Frank Storm asked, “Where are they going to put snow?” and Council Member Tom Schneider voiced a similar concern about drainage and water flow.

“I grew up in this area and it is pretty low,” Schneider said.

Mell said if this development changed the drainage too much, it might have to put in pond.

Otherwise the council members were not opposed to the development.

One other area to consider is whether park land would need to be dedicated for this development. Mell explained that the council can decide if it should dedicate land for public park use or a fee in lieu of such land.

City code requires that in a residential development, there can be up to 10% of the gross land of the area being subdivided. In this case, within this development, there is not a lot of land.

Mell said that Dollar General paid a fee in lieu of dedicating park land. In the past the council has required 10% of the market price of the land. City ordinance reads, “The decision on land or fees is solely the City’s.”

Storm said with land this small, it makes more sense to do a fee.

Fire coverage update

Rush City received a letter regarding its arrangements with the Pine City Fire Department from Marcy Peterson, interim city administrator for Pine City.

The letter read in part: “Your letter for consideration of mutual fire aid through 2024 was on the agenda for the [Pine City] council’s review last night. There were lengthy discussions regarding this and it was a difficult decision, one that was not taken lightly by any of our council members.

“As a result of this discussion, council voted not to approve your request to continue mutual aid with Rush City.”

Mell explained that Rush City had asked for a one-year extension, and added, “[Pine City] thought that would be calling for a loss. They do not want to continue with mutual aid that does not have fees. …

“As much as I disagree with charging each other for fire calls, it makes me nervous not having a mutual aid agreement.”

Mayor Al Johnson agreed, adding: “It’s a no-win [situation]. It still boils down to what is the right thing to do, and that is protect and serve the community. It is always going to be a judgment call.

“If the situation warrants it with life or property loss, we are going to call them. But we will have to work out how to pay for the $8,000 fee.”

After much discussion the city decided to draft a similar letter listing its rates and fees to review.

Unattached parcel

Jerry and Holly Schellbach purchased a tax-forfeit parcel immediately south of the Holiday station.

O’Neill Avenue does not extend to the parcel.

The couple met with Mell, Johnson, the city engineer and the city planner to discuss access and the couple’s plans for the parcel.

It was recommended to have a title search completed to check on deeded access. The council approved moving forward with a title search.